Turning up the heat on the AFL

The Drum can confirm that a legal request for prosecution of 11 other AFL clubs has been submitted to the Victorian WorkCover Authority today.Let’s see how quickly the clubs "disenchanted" with Essendon call in the lawyers, writes Tracey Holmes.

According to today's Age, "AFL club presidents have expressed serious disenchantment with Essendon and its chairman Paul Little" because they've had the hide to challenge a flawed investigation into the use of peptides through a court of law.

How dare they.

Today's disenchantment, even rage, is about to scale heights so far not seen.

The Drum can confirm that a legal request for prosecution of 11 other AFL clubs has been submitted to the Victorian WorkCover Authority today.

The landscape has altered irrevocably. Let's see how quickly those 11 other clubs, maybe more, call in the lawyers.

The premise of the notice served is based on an AFL story published on its own website last October. It states that of the "at least 12 clubs" that conducted sports supplements programs "with medium or high levels of supplement use", each of them "lacked a single point of accountability".

That single point of accountability cost the Essendon club a $2 million fine, a twelve-month suspension for its coach and the embarrassment of being kicked out of the finals.

It cost the other 11 clubs nothing. Till now.

Where was the ASADA/AFL joint investigation into those clubs? Where was the outrage that had Essendon appearing in headlines on front and back pages, on national current affairs programs and investigative reports? Where were the cries of concern for the health and safety of these young men at the other clubs?

As published on The Drum late last year, 12 clubs is 66 per cent of the AFL competition - we are talking the norm here, not the anomaly.

The pressure is now on the Victorian WorkCover Authority to investigate as an independent body.

It can ask the AFL to provide the results of their "survey" that came up with these alarming results. It can ascertain which clubs they were and no doubt which athletes were put through a "pharmacologically experimental environment" that is a constantly regurgitated, alarmist line trotted out in the one-sided reporting of the saga.

Let's finally give that description some perspective.

Dr Ziggy Switkowski was brought in by the Essendon Football Club to review "governance processes" after it became clear the focus of the joint ASADA/AFL investigation rested squarely on this one AFL club.

At no time was Dr Switkowski's report about the supplement program, since that would have interfered with the already ongoing ASADA/AFL investigation.

Anyone without experience or expertise in elite sports environments would see them as rather confronting, even shocking. Elite athletes, particularly footballers, are far more familiar with the environment.

Dr Switkowski must shudder every time he hears his report referred to and the only reference is to an area he didn't investigate and admits to having no knowledge of.

Rival clubs hoping to bring forward a crisis meeting in order to bring closure to the drugs saga might find the topic of discussion somewhat changed after today's developments.

Port Adelaide's David Koch, who sits at the top of the ladder-leading club, told The Age, "I want (the world) to see we are absolutely true to our values which supposedly define us."

Hopefully those values include justice, transparency and honesty.

If WorkCover Victoria, and potentially similar organisations in other states, come knocking at club doors, it will be interesting to see which values are adhered to.

Tracey Holmeshas focussed her career in journalism on sport and its wider implications. View her full profile here.

Comments (68)

Dave:

17 Jun 2014 4:26:55pm

As a football follower who's been very concerned about the health and safety implications for players at Essendon, I'm no less concerned about players at other clubs.

Get it out there and by all means introduce similar sanctions as those placed on Essendon. Name and shame the coaching staff responsible, make it clear to all fans and parents of kids playing at all levels that using supplements for purposes other than they are listed for with the TGA is not on and will not happen.

Of course, if everyone else gets kicked out of the finals then the irony of an Essendon-default-Premiership (they did their time last year) won't be lost on me.

Sir Bill Bored:

18 Jun 2014 9:30:57am

Gary, I think the substances were injected under the skin but I agree any form of injection for a pro sports person needs to be very carefully considered. I think this shows that Essendon are at best a bunch of dunderheads and unfit to hold an AFL licence.

APM:

17 Jun 2014 4:54:41pm

I have tried to grasp this issue but it looks like an opaque shambles with little hard evidence. Jumping at shadows. Dank won't even talk. I don't think this and the Cronulla case connect with the public. It has been handled poorly all round, and politicised, and this palaver is not worth it. The various authorities should drop this and develop better systems of investigation and drug prevention in the future to identify and dissuade clear cut infractions.

Sir Robert of Lindsay:

17 Jun 2014 8:51:58pm

What is NOT in dispute is the type of suppliments used that were and still are on banned lists.

The only hard evidence missing is that which would prove the claim the clubs were given an ok by ASADA on using a drug specifically mentioned on a banned list. If ANY evidence existed that advice was actually given then this investigation would have been stopped in it's tracks. As the investigation still continues I think it safe to assume NO evidence exists to back the claim.

I've no sympathy for them. The clubs are at fault here, and the players should have raised their concerns earlier instead of just going along with it.

To paint ASADA as the bad guy here is just plain wrong. ASADA didn't develop or approve the programs. ASADA doctors weren't in the change rooms giving the injections.

Despite the misgivings about how the publicity around the issue has gone, you have to ask yourself how else could they have handled it? Imagine the outcry if they had tried to keep it under wraps, remembering at the time a number of reporters were sitting on the story just breaking their necks to go to print.

SpartanWA:

Magnets:

17 Jun 2014 5:27:34pm

What a crock.

Some random sends a whiny "but they're doing it too!" message to Workcover, and this is seen as news???

There is a very big difference between a club "not having a single point of accountability" to "not having a clue what was in the hundreds of syringes injected into healthy athletes". I doubt the other clubs will have their lawyers on speed-dial for this one.

matt:

17 Jun 2014 7:18:53pm

"and potentially similar organisations in other states". Unfortunately your response seems to sum up the majority of responses. Speak first, read later, or don't even read at all. This is a well constructed article that highlights the reality of this issue in the AFL. Simplistic and flawed arguments won't eradicate this problem and the sooner the AFL community realise this the sooner the game can be improved for the safety of all involved.

Ahotah:

17 Jun 2014 9:30:54pm

You are right that the article highlights the reality of the issue within the AFL. However the point of Workcover Victoria investigating non Victorian clubs is a valid point - they don't have the ability to compel the interstate clubs to cooperate. The interstate clubs are governed by the states legislation that they are based in (whether that be SA, WA, NSW or Qld).

Personally, the fact that someone has lodged a complaint to WorkCover Victoria wanting to have a further 11 clubs investigated (the 12th club would be Essendon who is already under investigation by Workcover Victoria) makes the complaint to seem like it not as genuine to me as if they had asked for it to target the other 9 Victorian clubs with this complaint and then lodged complaints in the other states aimed at the clubs in those states.

matt:

18 Jun 2014 11:48:54am

The original article deals with your point exactly, see the first line I quoted in my reply. The article calls for "similar organisations in other states". You've continued the mistake that Sean committed, you've decided the outcome before you've read the message. This whole saga needs cool, dispassionate and level-headed judgement to be applied. Unfortunately this has been lacking in almost all the medias analysis of the situation.

DAvid:

17 Jun 2014 5:34:13pm

If a Club (or any other entity) wants to inject people (members, employees etc) then they are taking on a level of care and duty similar to that of a hospital or GP.

As a baseline, documentation of the program including; a summary outlining the program and its aims, a list of ingredients (only word I could think of to cover the possibilities) the amounts (dosages) and frequency of the program, a list of personel responsible for the implementation and their qualifications, a comprehensive data recording regime and a RISK assesment, might cover your legal obligations.

Also add to the list information/education for the players etc so they can make an informed decision and a clear policy that shows players can "opt out" without fear of reprisals.

I doublt any of the clubs have gone to those lengths, and could rightly be brough up for violations in providing a "safe" workplace for the players.

as for Essendon AOD9604 is not approved for human use and so under schedule 0, the players are all guilty as per the WADA /ASADA code. Given the players should/will sue Essendon for running a program that has ended up with them receiving a penalty I think is their ownly recourse.

Sadly the Players involved in these "supliment" programs must take personal responsability as the code demands, and more importantly their health and wellbeing going forward may be in serious trouble.

Rod Schober:

17 Jun 2014 5:53:13pm

Tracey is once again on the money with her interpretation of this "saga". Her balanced views are such a refreshing change from the Fairfax/ News media pack. This latest revelation makes it appear as though the witch burners have stabbed themselves in the foot with their own pitch forks.Tracey is also another solid reason why Abbott should keep his hands off the ABC & not allow the airwaves to be further polluted by the pimps of big media business.

gbe:

Brett:

17 Jun 2014 6:13:01pm

Essendon stooges have been trying to implicate clubs in their dirty scandal since it first broke. This is an attempt to rehash the irrelevant governance failure issue and has zero chance of going anywhere with workcover.

Look, it really is time the AFL stepped up and gave Essendon the boot, regardless of the consequences. This garbage has gone on for too long. The club and it's goons are completely deranged.

firthy:

18 Jun 2014 2:03:25pm

Ok if such evidence wasn't found why don't the ASADA show cause notices cover the injection of AOD9604 which is the product Essendon have admitted to administering? Of course the answer to that question is obvious - ASADA told the club that AOD9604 was OK. The real isue is whether Essendon administered players with a banned peptide - from what has come out there is fairly strong circumstantial evidence to support that claim hence ASADA issuing the show cause notices. Essendon deny doing this - ultimately the only person who really knows (Steven Dank) isn't talking.

Stevie English:

Andy:

17 Jun 2014 6:53:41pm

If the club was innocent they would defend the charges. Instead they are trying to use a technicality to make the evidence go away. This article is an utter disgrace, tracey is obviously another essendon supporter who is just upset her club got caught.

foolking:

17 Jun 2014 7:44:36pm

Footballers have been taking performance enhancing drugs since the game began probably. When it turned profesionall the onus of guilt swung to the club if they were instrumental in its use. To ponce about now with shock and horror banning players who are following instruction is ludicrous. What do you call a numbing "medicine" or injection that helps a player return during the game ? Not performance enhancing?

. How do you explain players who for years could only play with blockers given by doctors and are now partially crippled, good for them?

Which team was it taking blood transfusions on the boudary 10years ago. Anyone recall freakishly muscular teams winning premierships?

By all means fine clubs or individuals who go outside the teams expected protocols as defined by that club.But this sanctimonious chest beating by authorities and certain reporters is to coin that stupid phrase"unaustralian". Save face ,do what you have to do ,but this is just embarrassing.

noirmoi:

This is what Tracey alluded to when she referred to retiring AFL president Dimitriou shouldering some responsibility as the head honcho of the umbrella organisation.

The AFL should have in place a protocol that ALL clubs must sign off on, for consistency and equity and legality across the country. A national league ought to have a national code of conduct for all these matters, - such as it doesn't have for salary caps - (read living-away-from-Melbourne allowance).

In the absence of CLEAR AFL protocols and guidelines, ANY club can take a punt on their secretive risk assessments and training programmes, to gain the edge.

Jenny Deayton:

17 Jun 2014 7:48:24pm

Thank goodness for Tracey! Finally someone has listened to her. The AFL were obviously hoping it could be covered up by using Essendon as a scapegoat. Yell loud enough and long enough about Essendon and the other Clubs and their programs can be ignored and concern about them will eventually disappear. Every Essendon supporter has for so long known about the injustice of Essendon being used as a scapegoat for the performance enhancing programs of the other clubs.

Jason M:

As I argued on ABC24 when the ACC Report was first handed down, we may finally get to look behind the curtain and find out what really happens with substance use, misuse and abuse in elite sport.

And it is happening as it should - as a function of employee health and safety, rather than the dubious claims of protecting the "integrity of sport". If only we could convince the IOC that athlete health is more important than whether a drug does something to athletic performance.

AFLIST:

17 Jun 2014 8:46:58pm

Time to shut the whole AFL circus down. Obviously a boys club with no ethics at all. No care for its employees and no respect for anyone but it's high paid incompetent executives. Great work Tracey, well done.

Dave:

17 Jun 2014 8:51:32pm

Uh Tracey.....you might want to read the document you've kindly provided.The Victorian Workcover authority don't even have authority over 11 AFL clubs - as there are only 10 Victorian clubs. The remainder don't employ any staff in Victoria other than the occasional scout. Not that the document actually says 11 clubs will be prosecuted anyway. It's merely a request to investigate them (well not even them all, as they only have authority over 10 clubs). As you can clearly see in the document, their evidence to date is things that are known publicly. How about we wait until they actually start (or preferably finalise) an investigation before declaring anything about rage or disenchantment? Or better yet, wait until another club takes the authority to court on the grounds that their work is illegal and they shouldn't be allowed to investigate? That's what Essendon are doing - thumbing their nose at the rules.

matt:

18 Jun 2014 11:58:34am

Uh Dave...if you read Schedule A of the submission (it's the important document at the start of the article) you'll notice only the Victorian clubs are listed. In defence of Tracey she does call for "similar organisations in other states" to investigate other clubs. Don't worry about missing these points as many other replies have done the same. We've all got to remember to read (and understand) everything before we comment too strongly.

clubmangt:

18 Jun 2014 12:11:58pm

Dave,

An interesting point that I notice one or two others have raised...however I suspect as the Clubs concerned actually 'work' (i.e. play) in Victoria, this may bring them under WorkCover's authority, even if they are based in another state (the same logic I assume applies to a Company who is a legal entity in another state, but is working in Victoria - for example one assumes a company based in Albury whose staff are all NSW based can still be held accountable if they breach Vic laws while undertaking a job in Wodonga).

If it does transpire (and note my use of 'if') that there are issues at other Club's, then there is a broader AFL governance issue - and as Foolking notes it should be a case of 'let's evolve and move on' if that's the case.

However, what we appear to see - and I don't like - has been the 'nothing to see here' response about AFL Governance whenever its mentioned - I thought the classic case of this was the report just prior to the season kicking off with Tania Hird and friends of Dean Bailley (amongst others) raising issues with AFL processes - and the response across the board was to focus on her, not the broader issue of how the AFL does certain business. Subsequent statements by people like Jeff Kennett suggested some of the issues raised in that report might have had some substance.

A different Dave:

18 Jun 2014 3:01:06pm

@Clubman, 2 points.

Firstly, if the substances weren't injected in Victoria what possible jurisdiction would their workplace authorities have?

Secondly, I'll respond directly why you're wrong about the AFL's allegedly questionable governance. Unlike many sports, there is no private ownership of AFL teams. They co-exist with the AFL in terms pretty firmly dicated by the AFL. The AFL owes its alliegance to and is responsible to the collective fan-base of all teams (and the sponsors, without whom the whole enterprise suffers). As the extraordinary increase in revenues for all involved in the last 30 years shows, it's a magnificent business model. When a team goes behind the AFL and conducts itself in a naughty manner, they get smacked on the back of the legs to teach them a lesson. And tell you what, they don't do it again.

You want a lawyers picnic and media reps at ten paces instead? Well it's your call but I'd love to have been one of your kids. Forget discipline, I'm demanding due process! Call Tania Hird!

foolking:

It looks like any club that cannot provide correct procedure for use of supplements for the previous 2 years is liable.

I think that the money Essendon shelled out should be reimbursed by other clubs at fault.

The original fine of 2million should be matched by the AFL and go to the past players support fund.Apologies should be made to the scapegoat namely Essendon,and supporters, a learning process for all parties.

The directives given by the AFL were obviously non existent and/or incorrectly monitored by them, revealing negligent overall management of the competition. We evolve ,move on, and take a bow Tracey Holmes.

Dave:

You refer to 'supplements' without distinguishing between approved, TGA-listed supplements and non-approved supplements.

If the supplements used did not include any not listed by the TGA for the purpose they were used for, then the club has no problem. If the supplements were used for other-than-intended purposes, the clubs may well have severely harmed their players. Only time will tell.

Consider your ideas in the context of an employer exposing their workers to asbestos. Would you be happy with the outcomes you describe in those circumstances? Thought not.

Gordon:

17 Jun 2014 8:57:56pm

Call me na?ve but carrying out medical experiments on unwitting human beings had got to be more illegal than a workplace OH&S breach - as bad as that is.

As for Dank, the first thing any scientist does even a science-aping phony, is keep records. Even Dr Mengele kept records. Why Dank has not been compelled at law to pony up his records I do not understand.

gremland:

17 Jun 2014 9:50:31pm

Andy

I would suggest that if the AFL/ASADA investigation was not legal it is not a 'technicality'. How would you feel if you were prevented for working for two years on the basis of a flawed non judicial decision?Plenty of time to defend the charges m8 it is ASADA that has the hard work to do as there as no Essendon player that has tested positive to any banned substance. What is the evidence that they have? How was this evidence obtained, when did the alleged offences occur and who was allegedly involved?Lots of life left in this one food for thought m8 if it is possible for you think objectively Well done Tracey refreshing clear non biased reporting from the agenda pushers.

Brian Francis:

17 Jun 2014 10:20:19pm

Having actually played the game of football, it is still beyond me to understand just how players can get an extra edge week in-week out, by taking some kind of drug.To play football requires application of the physical attributes and with every move, a player is in line to receive a hard knock and be removed from the game. Talk about workplace safety is just a joke. Health and safety for some of the best athletes in the country, while they are getting their skulls smashed, their ribs crushed and their legs bruised;is pie in the sky socialist rubbish.To see that possibly all clubs are now in the firing line for investigation or even prosecution, is classic backside covering.This situation with Essendon is a no-win for the AFL and a no-win for ASADA. It is a definite no-win for the game and the players. So this is the blanket job to include everyone in the clean up.

neil:

17 Jun 2014 10:39:24pm

Peptides, clever little combinations of harmless amino acids that mimic the keys that unlock the natural potential of cells.

Trying to ban peptides in sport is like banning robots in the work place, they are the future they will infiltrate every part of our lives just like computers have. There will be peptides in your breakfast cereal that make you lose weight, peptides in your coffee that make you smarter, peptides in your Big Mac that make you stronger.

nathan:

17 Jun 2014 10:48:02pm

we are talking about some of the fittest young men in the country. the real question should be why do they need supplements other than a bannana. but in the end there is no excuse for an athlete to not know what is going into their body.

Bill:

18 Jun 2014 1:23:38am

This saga represents a great chance for the afl to drop a couple of the Victorian clubs and get back to a quality sporting competition. Essendon obviously has to go, now it seems they have 12 others to choose from. Sport is supposed to be about friendly competition preparing people for life, not the insane win and all cost mentality in the push for profits. Take these extremist business people out of the game, Demetriou was a good start, next Little, Hird, Eddie ...........

DavidXevon:

18 Jun 2014 8:24:04am

I'd like to know what the phrase "each of them "lacked a single point of accountability" actually mean.Does it mean they had no points of accountability, or that they lack one centralised, overarching point of accountability?Because as I read it the phrase has an ambiguity that can skew the whole intent of any criticism.

I believe it means the latter - that they lack one centralised, overarching point of control. But that is not, in and of itself, a sign of guilt. It may be a sign of poor control structures, but that does not mean guilt should be assumed.

The biggest concern to me is that ASADA have failed to prosecute the AOD9604 case, because it was allegedly not a banned substance at the time. This is according to previous news articles. Supplements derived from Human Growth Hormone are specifically banned, and the WADA catch-all clause specifically. herewith the relevant text:"The WADA has defined doping in its World Anti-Doping Code (?Code?). Under the Code, a substance or method is prohibited and considered doping if the WADA determines that the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria (italics for emphasis by the authors of this paper):

* Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect, or experience that the substance or method has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance. * Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect, or experience that the use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete. * Determination by the WADA that the use of the substance or method violates the Spirit of Sport as described in the ?Introduction to the Code?.

There is a prima facie case that the first and third asterisked points have been breached, yet ASADA has decided to go soft on the AOD9604 breach. Is that because the Essendon players who are rumoured to have participated in the limited trial of AOD9604 prior to the patent application may not have a leg to stand on????? About time ASADA came clean on why they have dropped the prosecution of the most damning of the Essendon breaches - that they knowingly used a substance banned under the rules to attempt to achieve an unfair advantage over other clubs by using a substance the patent application clearly claims to achieve earlier returns from injury, and which has an anabolic effect.

It would appear they are only prosecuting the Thymosin case, where players may have the defence that they thought they were being given the legal form of Thymosin.

I smell the caomparative whitewash of a much larger issue here, and I'm not one given to conspiracy theories.

Paul from Perth:

18 Jun 2014 10:53:29am

Unfortunately, this aspect of the investigation had to be dropped because there was some evidence that someone acting on behalf of ASADA gave someone acting on behalf of Essendon information that AOD9604 was not banned.

Whether or not the substance was banned at the time is now irrelevant. The person acting on behalf of Essendon took this information in good faith and worked with it.

There was obviously enough merit in this evidence for ASADA to focus its limited resources elsewhere.

In my mind, there is no doubt that AOD9604 was a banned substance at the time as it had not been approved for human use in Australia, however, Essendon acted on the information provided by ASADA, and that can obviously not be discounted now.

I would suspect that the finalisation of that element would have been the last piece of the puzzle before the most recent progression of this case, and may account for the seemingly drawn out last phase.

jocks trap:

18 Jun 2014 8:50:48am

This experimentation on player/athletes with supplements is so easily fixed with a rule change."That no person maybe administered a drug/supplementby a club physician or club official unless a written clearance for that compound is obtained from the relevant Drugs in Sport Authority and signed by the person administering the compound and the player/athlete must sight and receive a copy of the clearance and to further protect the player/athlete they are to be given possession on the DE-needled syringe to be attached to their copy"

Rob Jones:

18 Jun 2014 9:06:53am

As a taxpayer, I would rather my money be spent on investigating and making sure Victorian businesses were complying with safety legislation, not investigating sport supplements to an industry that only cares for itself and its reputation and money.

jocks trap:

18 Jun 2014 9:25:01am

Rob this is about workers safety these players are employees of the clubs and the clubs have a duty of care to those players not to endanger them via the administration of banned or untested substances where the long effects are unknown.

Brian Francis:

18 Jun 2014 10:06:27am

Jock'This is about workers safety'!No it's not. They are not workers they are footballers making buckets of money on the back of multi-level financial sponsorship.They are not in a workplace unless you consider the football field as such. One wonders how a football player could possibly be allowed to enter the world of pain open to them when they step onto the playing field, were that to be an actual 'workplace' the unions would be striking against conditions. It is not a workplace when players take on the responsibility to submit themselves to extraordinary physical pain and injury - it is sport! Sport is a choice and in making that choice, a player gains all of the accolades and the injuries that come with it. Their choice!

jocks trap:

18 Jun 2014 10:26:05am

They receive a financial payment from the clubs for services rendered in the course of their duties as players of their chosen code.The football field is a work place as this is where they carry out said duty and there are rules and regulation as to how those duties are carried out.Even volunteer workers are now covered by OHS and they receive no payment.

Brian Francis:

18 Jun 2014 10:47:02am

JockIt is interesting that were the football field to be an actual workplace, then the players are under such stress physically, that no other workplace would exist in those circumstances. The argument that football players are in a workplace is totally mis-guided and should never be such. Football players make a choice to put themselves in physically threatening situations as do bungee-jumpers, water-ski participants and so many other sport enthusiasts, it just so happens that because the public enjoy watching the game of football and it attracts so much money, it pays.Players get paid because they are good to watch, not because a workplace arrangement protects them. That is a secondary consideration at best. Maybe there should be padding installed onto every playing arena so that as a player falls to the ground, they can a enjoy a soft comfortable landing. Time to get real and understand that football hurts.

Brian Francis:

18 Jun 2014 1:11:13pm

JockIf,in fact, a football ground is deemed a workplace (which is debatable in itself), then football should be closed down given the injury rate.Players are paid under a pseudo employment arrangement, but the fact remains that if they were not good enough to fit the mould of a genuine footballer, they would be out and got rid of in no time. Now that's no workplace that would survive the rigours of a modern industry.Players are paid,yes, paid to entertain and get their bodies smashed up, but what of the un-paid players surely if they are performing the same task then equal pay suggests they receive equal payment?A football ground is not a workplace and whilst players are being constantly harmed by going about their normal duties, it will never(and should never) be referred to as such.As for taking some kind of performance enhancing drug, given the type of activity football is, it would still register less than if all other 'workplaces' were to have swabs taken regularly.

jocks trap:

18 Jun 2014 3:21:41pm

Brian, Just because YOU say it's NOT a workplace does not make so, if you earn a wage or a payment through a contract then the place that you earn that income is a workplace and you can say no its not as many times as you like but you will still be wrong.

Matt:

18 Jun 2014 2:35:48pm

Not only does this apply to professional sports but also to the world of junior and volunteer sports clubs. Check out the "Safe Work Australia" website. No-one's making this up, it's government legislation.

Ab:

Robert:

18 Jun 2014 3:52:15pm

Does explain why all other clubs and the AFL wish Essendon to take punishment for what they claim to not have done and just shut up. two million each and out of the finals, will leave Essendon the crown, as they have already served their finals penance.

Paul from Perth:

18 Jun 2014 4:33:47pm

Without a stated author to this 'Request', and with numerous spelling, grammatical and typographical errors, I suspect that this has not come from a member of the legal fraternity (these types of errors can have cases dismissed upon application) and I remain dubious as to its credibility.

Regardless, the Authority is now duty bound to investigate.

I can only speak as to my experience with the Western Australian OHS Authority (WorkSafe WA), but a request like the above can come from anyone in the community; an employee, member of the general public, union representative, parent of an employee, even an employer. Once a request is made, WorkSafe WA must investigate.

That doesn't mean that an organisation will automatically get prosecuted, it doesn't even guarantee that a worksite will get visited. Each request is prioritised and assigned as required.

The various OHS Authorities do have certain powers that other agencies do not have, such as being able to compel witnesses to answer questions (there is no right of silence), provide documentation and access to electronic and physical information systems.

In my opinion (based on a purely WA context), the VWCA will conclude their investigation into Essendon and use that as a framework for investigating any other clubs as it deems necessary. It will not be a speedy process as the VWCA is as resource poor as ASADA.

Latest Episode

Hot Topic

The Prime Minister has announced Australia will be expanding its military role in Iraq for up to two years. Tony Abbott has signed off on sending 300 Australian soldiers for a joint mission with New Zealand.